đŸ”Ŧ Chimeric Detective Report

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly

28
Contigs Analyzed
7
Contigs Split
20
Contigs Preserved
0.61
Mean Confidence

📊 Summary Visualizations

Chimera Type Distribution

Confidence Score Distributions

Decision Summary

Evidence Types Overview

🔍 Detailed Analysis Results

Contig ID Chimera Type Confidence Decision Breakpoint Evidence Types Explanation
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1539 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 749 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 749, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2322 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,322, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2154 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,154, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2891 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,891, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2729 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,729, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1444 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,444, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2550 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,550, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 563 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 563, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1047 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,047, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 443 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 443, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1239 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,239, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 378 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 378, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2446 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,446, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1642 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,642, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1373 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,373, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 256 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 256, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3076 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,076, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1938 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,938, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_002 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 326 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 326, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 192 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 192, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3601 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,601, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2962 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,962, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1747 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4356 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,356, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1325 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,325, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4837 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,837, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3888 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,888, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2857 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,857, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1808 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,808, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2518 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,518, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3728 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,728, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3332 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,332, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2263 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,263, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3119 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,119, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 546 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 546, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2402 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,402, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4239 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,239, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 431 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 431, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1289 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,289, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1572 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,572, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 457 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 457, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1682 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,682, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 334 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1463 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,463, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1940 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,940, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 243 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 243, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1140 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 541 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 541, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1852 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 772 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 772, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 957 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 957, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2156 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,156, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2336 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,336, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1678 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,678, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1539 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 547 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 346 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 346, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1357 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,357, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1964 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,964, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1424 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,424, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 951 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 951, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1262 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,262, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1054 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,054, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 261 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 261, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2139 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,139, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2018 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,018, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 624 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1791 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,791, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1150 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,150, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 570 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 570, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2474 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,474, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2634 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,634, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2837 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,837, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 451 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 451, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 651 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 651, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1016 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,016, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1558 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,558, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 825 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 825, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2345 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1237 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,237, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 300 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 300, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1957 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,957, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1780 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,780, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2759 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3025 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2524 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,524, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 280 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 280, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2278 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,278, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1160 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,160, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1390 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,390, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2941 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,941, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2025 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 268 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 268, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 384 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 384, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3716 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,716, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3463 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,463, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3389 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3645 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 398 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 398, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2403 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,403, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 532 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 532, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 723 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 723, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4301 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1818 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2845 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1629 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,629, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3153 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,153, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1319 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,319, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2599 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,599, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4649 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,649, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4174 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,174, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3211 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,211, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1221 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,221, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2967 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,967, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1447 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,447, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1069 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3976 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,976, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4485 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,485, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1956 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2607 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,607, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3844 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,844, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4023 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,023, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 235 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 235, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2450 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,450, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3234 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,234, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1287 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,287, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1882 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,882, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4470 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,470, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2060 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,060, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4028 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,028, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1191 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3751 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,751, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 958 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 958, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3890 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,890, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3072 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,072, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 759 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2655 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,655, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2238 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,238, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2927 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,927, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4305 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,305, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1064 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,064, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1306 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,306, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3123 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,123, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4172 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,172, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3646 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,646, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3409 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,409, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2716 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,716, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2167 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,167, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 623 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 623, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 552 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 552, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 203 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 203, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4857 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,857, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4543 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 521 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 4061 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,061, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.48) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2197 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,197, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.11) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3524 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,524, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3776 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,776, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5020 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,020, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2080 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,080, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1954 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,954, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1442 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,442, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 945 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 945, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 5474 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,474, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4252 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,252, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1760 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,760, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2746 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,746, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2492 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,492, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 6257 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,257, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2982 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,982, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1094 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,094, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5190 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,190, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4425 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2319 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,319, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3407 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,407, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_012 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 330 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 330, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 5330 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 758 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 758, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5879 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,879, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3299 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,299, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.47) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3125 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,125, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1265 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,265, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 631 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 6140 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,140, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2549 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,549, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1300 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 450 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 450, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1051 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,051, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 937 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 937, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1695 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,695, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3046 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,046, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 568 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 568, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1172 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,172, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1407 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,407, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 845 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3275 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,275, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2302 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,302, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2852 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 3558 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,558, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3168 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,168, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 304 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 304, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2751 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,751, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3375 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,375, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 250 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1767 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,767, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1515 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,515, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 754 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 754, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2678 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,678, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2428 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,428, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2956 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1793 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,793, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 694 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 694, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3209 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,209, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 972 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 972, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2171 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,171, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1898 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,898, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 554 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4312 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,312, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 312 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 312, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1357 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,357, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 775 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 775, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3996 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,996, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1182 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,182, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2414 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,414, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2776 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2802 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,802, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1459 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,459, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3850 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,850, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1657 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,657, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3126 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3510 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,510, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2364 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,364, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4551 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,551, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 463 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 463, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5005 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,005, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2641 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,641, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2282 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3038 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4449 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,449, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3710 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,710, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2559 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,559, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4210 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,210, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 842 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 842, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2430 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,430, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3751 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,751, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3609 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,609, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3466 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,466, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3138 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,138, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3244 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,244, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1697 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,697, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2849 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,849, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2726 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,726, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1221 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,221, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2361 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1852 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1061 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,061, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4023 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,023, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2667 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3044 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,044, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 733 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 733, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2146 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,146, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2276 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3303 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,303, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1386 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,386, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2547 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2932 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,932, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 642 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 642, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 268 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 268, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 327 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 327, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2999 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 257 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 257, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 736 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2200 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,200, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2331 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,331, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1466 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,466, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1284 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,284, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1641 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,641, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2454 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,454, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 212 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 212, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 864 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 864, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 956 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2835 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,835, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 369 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 369, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 638 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 638, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2563 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,563, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2130 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,130, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 814 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 814, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 524 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 524, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1833 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,833, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1525 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,525, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1962 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,962, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2469 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,469, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 439 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1727 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,727, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1499 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,499, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2080 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,080, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2333 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,333, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 164 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 164, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2726 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,726, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2278 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,278, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 631 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1271 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,271, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1304 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,304, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2115 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,115, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1476 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,476, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1509 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,509, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 657 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 657, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 861 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 861, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 280 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 280, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2561 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,561, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1759 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1858 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,858, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2717 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,717, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2007 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,007, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1073 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,073, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2370 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,370, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2563 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,563, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1517 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,517, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2069 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1137 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,137, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2254 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,254, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1731 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,731, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 939 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 939, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2380 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,380, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 858 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 460 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 460, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2692 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,692, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 228 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 228, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2145 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,145, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 776 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1891 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,891, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1002 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,002, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1391 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,391, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1267 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,267, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 636 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 636, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1740 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,740, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 764 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 764, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 924 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 924, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1577 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,577, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1292 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,292, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1076 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,076, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1427 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,427, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 225 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 225, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1656 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 507 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 507, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 450 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 450, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 350 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 350, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 194 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 194, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.16) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 745 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 745, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 361 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1628 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,628, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 929 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 929, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 538 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 538, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1179 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,179, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1462 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1378 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,378, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1800 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,800, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.14) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 799 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 799, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1188 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,188, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1548 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,548, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 535 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 535, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1038 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1370 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,370, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 362 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 362, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 909 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 909, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.47) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.60.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 227 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 227, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1674 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,674, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1433 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,433, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1750 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,750, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_001 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 870 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 870, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1593 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,593, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 697 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 697, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2077 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,077, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1440 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,440, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4731 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,731, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1917 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,917, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4672 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,672, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 767 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 767, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_004 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 367 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 603 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 603, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 817 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 817, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3121 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1631 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,631, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2121 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1158 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,158, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2987 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,987, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 647 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 647, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2568 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,568, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3474 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,474, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2282 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1943 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,943, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3938 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,938, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1053 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,053, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3256 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,256, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2844 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,844, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3387 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,387, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1604 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,604, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1434 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,434, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3020 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 464 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 464, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2147 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,147, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3587 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,587, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3166 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,166, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 317 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 317, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2750 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,750, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3686 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,686, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2029 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,029, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2462 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,462, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 762 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 5968 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,968, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4580 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,580, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 831 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 831, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2187 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,187, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2035 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,035, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1981 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,981, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4906 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,906, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2086 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 390 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 390, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2123 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,123, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1747 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2999 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3236 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3524 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,524, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 656 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2467 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,467, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3828 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,828, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3731 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,731, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 3656 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,656, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1155 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1956 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 766 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 766, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3120 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,120, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1462 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2879 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,879, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 530 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 530, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 973 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 973, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4044 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,044, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_016 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 259 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 259, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1630 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,630, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2069 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,069, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3093 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,093, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1391 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,391, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3915 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,915, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1266 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,266, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 891 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 891, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 439 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1549 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,549, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1990 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,990, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3950 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 341 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 341, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2320 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,320, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1851 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,851, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1913 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,913, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1591 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,591, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2719 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,719, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1058 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,058, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1189 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 551 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 551, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1709 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,709, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2478 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,478, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2633 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,633, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2238 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,238, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2174 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,174, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 189 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 189, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 875 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 875, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2037 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,037, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2020 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1749 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,749, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 653 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 653, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1677 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,677, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1477 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,477, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2568 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,568, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 877 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 877, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1152 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,152, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2240 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,240, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1347 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,347, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1987 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,987, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1871 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,871, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 465 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 465, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 939 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 939, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 737 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 737, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 325 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 325, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2179 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,179, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2845 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2680 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,680, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2772 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,772, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1191 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1078 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,078, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1310 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,310, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 237 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 237, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2475 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,475, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1212 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,212, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 169 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 169, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1482 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,482, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2821 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,821, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 163 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 163, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 614 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 614, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1888 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,888, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2042 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,042, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3210 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,210, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2447 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,447, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3394 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,394, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1932 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,932, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 907 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 907, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4302 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,302, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3475 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,475, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2563 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,563, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4544 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,544, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 425 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 425, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3934 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,934, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 678 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 678, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1386 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,386, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1747 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1016 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4054 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,054, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3176 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,176, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4922 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,922, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2363 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,363, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1539 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2131 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,131, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1236 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 597 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 597, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2901 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,901, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3752 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,752, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 723 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 723, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2061 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,061, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3058 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,058, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4554 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 229 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 229, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3441 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,441, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 958 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 958, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 172 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 172, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1752 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,752, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 519 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 519, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1349 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,349, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1547 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,547, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 856 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 856, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 645 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 645, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2388 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,388, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4231 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,231, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 5686 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,686, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_009 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 3979 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,979, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 784 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 784, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1574 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,574, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3349 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,349, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 5468 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,468, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1492 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 4709 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,709, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1025 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,025, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2216 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,216, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4522 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,522, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 5315 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,315, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1754 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,754, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 3040 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,040, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 950 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1348 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,348, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1996 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2126 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.54) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2905 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,905, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 413 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 413, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2580 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,580, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3761 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,761, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3698 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,698, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4970 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,970, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2853 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,853, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4853 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,853, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.08) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 5124 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,124, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1151 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,151, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 431 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 431, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2328 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,328, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3583 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1645 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2129 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,129, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.11) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_018 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 5128 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,128, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2897 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,897, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1482 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,482, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2741 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 504 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 504, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1705 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,705, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 389 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 389, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1189 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1036 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,036, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4767 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,767, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 302 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 302, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4856 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,856, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 669 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 669, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3241 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,241, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4486 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,486, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1580 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,580, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3944 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,944, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4367 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2649 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,649, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1828 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,828, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3533 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,533, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2862 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,862, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1410 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,410, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3066 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,066, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3375 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,375, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 521 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4248 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,248, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 887 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 887, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 964 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 964, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2543 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 3826 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,826, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 4977 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,977, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4514 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,514, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2137 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,137, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_018 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1634 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,634, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2016 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4063 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,063, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1140 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4711 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,711, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1276 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 969 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 969, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2331 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,331, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1528 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,528, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2676 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,676, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 772 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 772, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2218 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,218, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1128 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,128, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_007 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 945 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 945, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2762 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3596 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,596, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2609 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,609, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2749 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,749, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1850 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,850, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2301 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1247 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,247, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2241 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,241, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1613 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,613, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 837 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 837, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2600 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,600, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3762 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1218 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,218, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 370 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 370, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 640 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 640, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2077 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,077, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1822 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,822, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2420 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 699 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 699, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.48) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1255 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,255, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4024 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,024, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 158 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 158, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2048 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,048, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3846 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,846, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2289 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,289, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2821 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,821, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 3342 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,342, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4294 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,294, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3393 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,393, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1196 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,196, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.

📈 Individual Contig Details

Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:

â„šī¸ Methodology & Interpretation

Detection Methods

Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:

  • Coverage Discontinuities: Sharp changes in read coverage depth
  • Sequence Composition: Changes in GC content and k-mer frequencies
  • Taxonomic Classification: Transitions between different viral/host lineages
  • Read Pair Orientation: Inconsistent paired-end read orientations

Classification Categories

  • Technical Artifacts: Assembly errors, typically split
  • PCR Chimeras: Amplification artifacts, typically split
  • Biological Recombination: Genuine recombination events, preserved
  • Provirus Integration: Virus-host integration sites, flagged

Confidence Scores

Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.